Government Still Pushing for Cell Phone Tracking Without Probable Cause

New York - The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) has asked a federal magistrate judge in New York City to reject a Department of Justice (DOJ) request to track a cell phone user without first showing probable cause of a crime. In a brief filed in New York on Tuesday, EFF and the Federal Defenders of New York argue that no law authorizes the government's request, and that granting the order would threaten Americans' Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable searches.

This latest briefing comes after a decision last week in Maryland denying a similar order, which combined with two recent denials published by federal courts in New York and Texas, represents an unprecedented judicial rebuke to the DOJ's surveillance practices. The DOJ's apparently routine practice of asking for and receiving cell-tracking orders without probable cause only recently came to light as a result of these newly published decisions typically, such requests are made and granted in secret, without any public accounting.

"Even though three federal courts have now completely rejected the Justice Department's arguments for tracking a cell phone without probable cause, it is still asking other judges for these plainly illegal surveillance orders," said Kevin Bankston, EFF Staff Attorney. "How many public denials is it going to take before the Justice Department either stops seeking such orders altogether, or is willing to appeal one of these decisions and subject its baseless arguments to scrutiny by higher courts?"

The DOJ, despite claims that its cell phone tracking requests are routine, necessary, and perfectly legal, has so far chosen not to appeal any of the recent decisions.

Related Updates

Today Google launched a new version of its Chrome browser with what they call an "ad filter"—which means that it sometimes blocks ads but is not an "ad blocker." EFF welcomes the elimination of the worst ad formats. But Google's approach here is a band-aid response to the crisis of...

The U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS), Customs and Border Protection (CBP) Privacy Office, and Office of Field Operations recently invited privacy stakeholders—including EFF and the ACLU of Northern California—to participate in a briefing and update on how the CBP is implementing its Biometric Entry/Exit Program. As we’ve written ...

San Francisco, California—Face recognition—fast becoming law enforcement’s surveillance tool of choice—is being implemented with little oversight or privacy protections, leading to faulty systems that will disproportionately impact people of color and may implicate innocent people for crimes they didn’t commit, says an Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) ...

It should not be surprising that arguably the biggest mistake in Internet policy history is going to invoke a vast political response. Since the FCC repealed federal Open Internet Order in December, many states have attempted to fill the void. With a new bill that reinstates net neutrality protections, Oregon...

Last month, Congress reauthorized Section 702, the controversial law the NSA uses to conduct some of its most invasive electronic surveillance. With Section 702 set to expire, Congress had a golden opportunity to fix the worst flaws in the NSA’s surveillance programs and protect Americans’ Fourth Amendment rights...

President Donald Trump’s first State of the Union address last night was remarkable for two reasons: for what he said, and for what he didn’t say. The president took enormous pride last night in claiming to have helped “extinguish ISIS from the face of the Earth.” But he failed to...

State agencies in California are collecting and using more data now than they ever, and much of this data includes very personal information about California residents. This presents a challenge for agencies and the courts—how to make government-held data that’s indisputably of...